The VBA Legislative Blawg is the law-related blog of Bob Paolini our government relations guru at the VBA. Bob will keep you apprised of the happenings in the Legislature and keep members up-to-date with pressing legal issues affecting the practice of law in Vermont

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Here’s a short update and what’s happening both on a
substantive issue and on the funding crisis in the judicial branch. The House
Judiciary Committee is nearing completion of its review of the Uniform Transfer
to Minors Act. Yesterday, legislative counsel Erik FitzPatrick presented some amendments
to the committee that were requested last week. After discussion and a few more
changes, he emailed them to Stephanie Willbanks, Joe Cook, Mark Langan, and me.
Stephanie weighed in with one comment as did I; pending any issues that may be
raised by Joe or Mark, the Committee may vote the bill out as early as 1:30
today.

Tomorrow the Committee will focus on the H.86 - An act
relating to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Uniform Law Commissioner
Richard Cassidy will testify and VBA Family Law Section Chair Penny Benelli
will also. I’ll post an update when there’s more to report on that.

On the judiciary budget front, you now know that H. 82, the
budget adjustment act is out of committee, on today’s Notice Calendar and up
for action Thursday and Friday on the House floor. Yesterday the Senate
Appropriations Committee heard from the court administrator on the $224,138 cut
in this year’s budget. Although I continue to deliver the message I’ve heard
from many of you that these cuts are damaging access to justice, the judiciary
seems willing to manage to that level of reduced funding. Every state agency
(yes, I know we’re talking about a branch and not an agency or department) is
expected to keep about a 3% vacancy savings. The judiciary now carries a 3.5%
vacancy. The cuts in the budget adjustment bill would force them to raise that
to 7-8%; too much to ask, I’d say. The question for you the reader is whether a
branch of government should be forced to operate at that reduced level. When does
that reduction affect the constitutional obligation of the judicial branch? And,
if, as some of you are telling me, the answer is NOW, what should we do about
it? I will continue to deliver your message to the legislature. My hands are a
bit tied though since the court is acceding to the reduction.

So, back to yesterday’s hearing. There are a couple of
highlights I want you all to know. Senator Sears pressed court administrator
Pat Gabel on the costs of court security ($2.5M). He thinks they’re spending
too much on security. He’s looking for the governor’s recommended $500,000 cut
in next year’s budget. He said he’d be willing to discuss court closings if the
court administrator has a recommendation on saving some of the “wasted” money
spent on security.

In response to the letter to the Chief Justice by the House
Appropriations Committee last Friday, she said the court is prepared to convene
and lead a process that includes all the parties. (The VBA is one of the
parties copied in that letter). She raised two other topics: the potential regionalization
of certain dockets and, not closing courts but “right sizing courts”.

When Senator Sears asked about the court’s decision to not
fill the Environmental Division manager’s position, Pat said the following: she
had been tasked by the supreme court to report to them (within 60 days) on the “regionalization
of management”. That was new to me. She had previously told me, as had the
Chief, that the court had not made a final decision on filling that position. Now,
it appears to be tied to something that we’ve not heard before.

Finally, Senator Sears raised the issue of consolidating
probate courts again. As many of you may recall when H. 470, the judicial restructuring
bill, was introduced it reduced the number of probate courts from the then 18
to 5! The VBA opposed that in 2010 and the final act settled on 14 courts. He’s
bringing it up again as a way to reach the $500,000 savings the governor is looking
for. Pat Gabel made it clear that that is not the judiciary’s recommendation.

So, where does this leave us? I expect the budget adjustment
debate is over; it’s certainly too late to change anything in the House. Now is
the time for each of you to contact your senators and let them know the effect
these cuts are having on your clients’ access to justice. As one person, I can
only do so much. Nothing beats a constituent contacting a legislator. It would
be even better if you could get a client story before your senator.

Monday, January 26, 2015

it’s a summary of what has been happening in appropriations committee hearings last week. Although the VBA
opposed not only the $500,000 cut in the FY 16 budget year but also the
$730,473 rescission in this year’s budget. Unfortunately the judiciary did not
contest this year’s cut. My testimony fell on deaf ears since the recipient of
that money really didn’t object. No, I don’t know why.

If you followed the link last week to the letters submitted
by the court, check it out again today. I’ve added a letter from the chair of
the House Appropriations Committee to the Chief Justice. Please continue to contact
you legislators, concentrating now on your senators. If you have clients that
are being prejudiced by these cuts, relate that case or, even better, have the client
contact his or her senator.

On a more positive note, the House Judiciary Committee is
scheduling its third hearing on the Uniform Transfer to Minors Act. It looks as
though after many attempts, Vermont may finally adopt UTMA, leaving only South
Carolina still operating under the UGMA. Updates to the Vermont Limited Liability
Company Act and to probate administration have been submitted to legislative
council and are being drafted for introduction.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

A
number of you have been asking about the judiciary budget in light of the
rescissions in this fiscal year (ending 30 June) and the proposed base budget
reduction in FY16 beginning 1 July. Here is a link to three letters from the
Court Administrator’s Office and the Chief Justice going back to August 2014.

The
first rescission in August was $181,335. The newest (see the January 12, 2015
letter) is for an additional $224,138, totaling a cut of $405,473. The
administration is seeking a $500,000 general funds base budget reduction for
next year. Here is the administration’s language in the budget adjustment bill:

Sec.
70. JUDICIARY SAVINGS

(a)
The Court Administrator will propose to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees by March 31, 2015, changes in judicial operations that will yield
savings of at least $500,000 in General Funds in fiscal year 2016. These
savings shall represent a permanent and on-going reduction in expenditures.

You
already know the judiciary cannot sustain cuts of this magnitude.

We
already have three judicial vacancies, and the Judiciary has been required to
maintain an extraordinary vacancy savings policy for court staff, as
well. There may well be another judgeship that opens before the
legislative session ends. Your Board of Managers’ concern is the impact of these
vacancies and cuts on access to justice for Vermonters. The Chief Justice’s
letter of January 14th strongly states the court’s opposition to further cuts.
Yesterday, in House Judiciary he said that this level of cuts will affect the
court’s ability to meet its constitutional obligations.

Now is the time to contact your legislators and
let them know of the danger inherent in these cuts. We talk a lot about access
to justice and for many that means access for low income Vermonters. Right now
we may be heading into a larger crisis in access for everyone. Let’s not let
that happen.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Well, the 2015-2016 session is underway. There are some
shifts in committee membership, as expected. But, the interesting thing this
year is that the House Judiciary Committee has undergone a change such as I don’t
ever remember. Five committee members did not seek re-election; two were
defeated. The long time Chair, Bill Lippert, is now the Chair of the House
Health Care Committee. Here is the current committee membership:

Rep. Maxine Jo Grad, Chair

Rep. Willem Jewett, Vice Chair

Rep. Tom Burditt, Ranking Member

Rep. Chip Conquest

Rep. Bill Frank

Rep. Martin LaLonde

Rep. Marcia Martel

Rep. Betty A. Nuovo

Rep. Barbara Rachelson

Rep. Vicki Strong

Rep. Gary Viens

With all those new faces it will no doubt take some time to
bring committee members up to speed on the work they’re about to undertake. It is,
of course, the committee we work with most closely. In fact, on Friday morning Chief
Superior Judge Brian Grearson and Court Administrator Pat Gabel are giving an
overview of the judiciary. I am presenting right after them on the VBA, the
VBF, the Access to Justice Coalition, etc.

Other committee of importance are Commerce and Economic
Development where we expect to see a bill updating the LLC laws. Here are its
members:

Rep. Bill Botzow, Chair

Rep. Michael Marcotte, Vice Chair

Rep. Warren F. Kitzmiller, Ranking Member

Rep. Fred Baser

Rep. Steve Carr

Rep. Maureen Dakin

Rep. Jean O'Sullivan

Rep. Corey Parent

Rep. Heidi E. Scheuermann

Rep. Laura Sibilia

Rep. Valerie A. Stuart

Perhaps most importantly, especially for the judicial branch
budget is the House Appropriations Committee. It looks like four new members of
that committee this biennium:

Rep. Mitzi Johnson, Chair

Rep. Peter J. Fagan, Vice Chair

Rep. Kathleen C. Keenan, Ranking Member

Rep. Bob Helm

Rep. Marty Feltus

Rep. Mary S. Hooper

Rep. Diane Lanpher

Rep. Anne Theresa O'Brien

Rep. Albert "Chuck" Pearce

Rep. Kitty Beattie Toll

Rep. Matthew Trieber

As always, I’ll do my best to keep you up to date on the
happenings under the golden dome; stay warm, and, thanks for reading.